I recently watched your video with the cartoonist outlining your platform focused on the middle class and their struggles primarily with Debt. While, you seem to be saying a lot of things that resonate with me there is one issue that you have not recognized and I am curious as to what your stance is on this issue.

The issue that I am talking about is that of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. If you want to address Debt and want to resolve personal debt in this country, I don’t think you can do that with out addressing the Federal Guidelines and the gross mis-justice within them. You want to make real and effective change for the families of Canada then this is a platform that will win you tremendous support. In Canada we have a very high divorce rate and while it may appear that divorce rates may be on the decrease, I would suggest that that is because fewer people are getting married and are choosing to cohabitate instead. That doesn’t mean fewer people are having babies or fewer children are raised in split homes regardless of marital status. In both scenarios the Federal Child Support Guidelines apply.

When you look behind the curtain of these laws, you will find our great Canadian Families riddled with DEBT. Debt not only because of the ridiculously long and drawn out family proceedings and lawyers costs but because of the guidelines themselves.

Did you know it can sometimes take years for families to resolve issues through family court? The process is set up that way. While, employee disputes are handled in mere months, family law draws things out as long as possible requiring a case conference, settlement conference, trial and a potential for yearly motions for any adjustments in child support?

Did you know that many middle class families have no access to legal representation because they “make too much” to qualify for legal aid but in reality don’t make any where near enough for Lawyers’ fees.

Did you know that Federal Guidelines base their figures on “Gross” amount of income which fails to reflect an actual income after taxes? and that that money is given to the recipient tax free?

Did you know that the system is set up for double dipping or even triple dipping? A mother (Majority of cases have the mother as the recipient) can demand child support, as well as spousal support, and then on top of that Section 7 expenses. Each being calculated by the original gross income which therefore gets compounded into such a foolish amount that there is simply not enough to live off of? This in itself is a breech of the Canadian Constitution: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. If you steal from a man more than he can reasonable survive on you steal his rights to life, liberty and security.

Did you know that our military men who receive a pension for disability have that income “grossed” up only in a family court and not in any other situation. The CRA, Veteran’s affairs, or any other governmental agency does not recognize this or even know how to calculate it as it is unheard of. Only a computer program in the hands of Lawyers and Judges can calculate this made up calculation

Did you know that second families are not awarded any recognition, security, or legal rights as the children of the first families? Only in family court can a judge demand a payment towards post secondary education and that children from a second marriage, or still married family are not afforded the same rights?

Did you know that The federal Guidelines only being guidelines award judges so much power that they can over rule the table amounts and create any amounts they see fit?

Did you know that a payer can be forced to pay for extracurricular activities regardless of his ability to pay? In families not split, parents can veto an activity if it falls into a category of luxury and out of their ability to afford it but in family court, children’s downhill skiing can take precedence over the payers ability to pay for basis bills.

I know more than I ever cared to know about family law and as a Canadian citizen I am disgusted with the a system that has nothing to do with Justice. I expected better from Canada.

What can you do about it?

Federal Guidelines should be based on a net not gross amount. Judges should be restricted to line 236 of the payers tax return. Absolute! No “in the digression” of the judge. That is too much power for one person to wield.

Spousal support should be determined after the child support has been deducted (Line 236 - Child Support = New amount from which to calculate spousal). Unless in a circumstance where their is no child support and then amount may start from line 236.

Section 7 expenses percentages should be calculated by (line 236 - Child Support - Spousal Support = new amount from which to determine %) as well for the receiver ( line 236 + Child Support + Spousal Support = Their new amount from which to calculate percentage.)

Court process of the Family Rules should be scrapped and family matters should be handled as expediently as possible reflective more of a mediation process like employee or union disputes.

Expediting proceedings are in the best interest of the children which is the primary mandate of the family law process, minimizes continued acrimony, and reduces court costs.

All split parents should automatically be awarded joint custody and forced to do co-parenting classes should they show signs of high conflict instead of the current approach that high conflict is reason enough to award sole custody. Many mother’s know this and then create conflict to ensure their award of sole custody, awarding them absolute power and absolute increased wealth through above mentioned triple dipping.

Fatherless children are far more likely to tax the country by early pregnancy, addictive and anti-social behaviours, and need of more mental health programs, or even jail time. Yet, the system almost forces men into the background and fails to understand Malicious Mother Syndrome or Child Alienation Syndrome. Therefore, judges overseeing mediation in family law matters need to be educated and made aware of the reality of the dynamics of many high conflict cases.

The cultural indoctrination of “Dead Beat Dads” needs to be equaled out with social awareness of “Malicious Mothers”. A family court room is a perfect playground for someone to “legally” harass, slander, make false allegations, and financial destroy the opposing party should they be inspired by vindictiveness. There are zero fail safes to prevent this. I fully believe men should provide for their children and that at one time protections needed to be put in place to product mothers but the pendulum has swung far too far to the left. And where are the protections for fathers?

Mr Trudeau, If you want to take seriously the issues to the middle class and debt, this issue should be brought on to your platform. Debt is not good for families and it is not good for the economy. Therefore, the Federal Guidelines are not good for the economy. If you were to assure me that you take these concerns seriously and promise real change to this debt producing system, not only would I vote for you I would advocate for you.

Mr. Trudeau was raised in a very wealthy family (Prime Minister's (a lawyer) son no less) and attended Ivy-league schools. Do you seriously think he can relate to this or gives a rat's ass? His own mother received MEGABUCKS at the time of his parents divorce in exchange for giving her ex sole custody.

What would you like me to cite? The family Guidelines? Or the countless statistics of children's issues that come from acrimonious split family homes? Or the psychological truth about Parent Alienation? "Malicious Mother syndrome" is as real as "Dead beat dad" which people fling about as a cultural norm.

You may not choose to agree with me and that is your prerogative but until you have walked a mile in my shoes you have little knowledge of the devastation a vindictive woman can do in a court if she so chooses. And I would hazard a guess that many payors (men or women) would agree the guidelines are unjust.

And as for Mr. Trudeau, he is a political leader platforming on the issue of debt and the middle class so to argue that his personal upbringing makes him unqualified for the job is just ignorant. Do I trust he is going to do something? No. But hell if I'm not going to use a politicians posturing for votes as an opportunity to address my concerns.

And btw, I am a woman! But by your reasoning that would make me unqualified to understand the plight of a father.

What would you like me to cite? The family Guidelines? Or the countless statistics of children's issues that come from acrimonious split family homes? Or the psychological truth about Parent Alienation? "Malicious Mother syndrome" is as real as "Dead beat dad" which people fling about as a cultural norm.

You may not choose to agree with me and that is your purgative but until you have walked a mile in my shoes you have little knowledge of the devestation a vindictive woman can do in a court if she so chooses. And I would hazard a guess that many payors (men or women) would agree the guidelines are unjust.

And btw, I am a women!

If you truly believe the guidelines are unjust for payors, why genderize the issue with garbage about Malicious Mothers?

The nonsense about men vs women (or fathers vs mothers) discredits the rest of your letter, which has some valid points about tax implications. It's also inaccurate. The law is gender-blind.

(For what it's worth, I'm *female* with 50/50 custody, and also a payor to an ex who earns over $100K a year and whose household income is nearly double mine and who walked away from the marriage with much more wealth than I did. I've got a ten-year-old Subaru, he drives a brand new BMW/motorbike/RV. I don't love this situation, but it's the outcome of laws which are generally fair so I don't bitch about it).

Why does society genderize the issue with garbage about dead beat dads?

If a man is a "dead beat" regardless of truth or circumstance society goes tsk tsk. If a women abuses that courts to seek revenge through financially ruining her ex... society goes ... that's garbage?

Can't have it both ways!!

If you can not open you mind to the possibility that not all women are wonderful and that not all men are not, you would focus on the actually issues regarding the Federal Guidelines and how they devastate families instead of focusing on my wording. But, I imagine the real reason you don't like what I am saying is because you want $ and I am purposing ways to reduce and actually equalize households.

Statistically the majority of payors are men so the issue is already genderized. Otherwise there would be just as many men awarded with sole custody, or even given equal custody but there simply are not. Therefore, statistics prove a gender bias and gender does indeed play a large role in family court and to deny it is to simply deny numbers.

I as a women would never dream of dragging my ex through court to ruin his life or try to screw him financially and because of that we have a well adjusted child. But most women that I have seen are not me and that certainly holds true for what I have witnessed first hand.

5 years my partner has been dragged through family court. For what? Money and absolute power. If that is not malicious I don't know what is.

Stripes: Good for you for taking 50/50, many women don't and fight tooth and nail for everything, so you are not really experiencing what individuals who have been robbed of custody and granted visitation in their children's lives who are forced to pay through the nose. You may feel hard done by from the system and if you do go speak your voice, be heard! It's a free country wherein we each have the freedom of expression, the freedom to fight for injustices and the freedom to go to our political representatives asking for solutions to the turmoil we endure.

So no "cut and paste" Karmamaster? The above article is your own thought in it's entirety?

I don't believe the gender-bashing was necessary. It did have my attention for a a while - nanosecond.

And the crack about the kid and the cartoons ... are you trying to imply I am a bad mother as well? I write a letter to Trudeau and you start personally attacking me? WTF? May I suggest, you not take my letter so personally or go deal with what ever has triggered a nerve because I don't know you nor was I commenting on you personally yet your responses are way over the top.